I have met Gil Kerlikowske a couple of times, prior to his appointment as Drug Czar, and he is a very intelligent, articulate individual. But sometimes he needs help with his speech-writing as is seen in the following quote in relation to the findings that the more force used to enforce drug prohibition, the greater the increase in violence (unfortunately Mexico is a perfect example of this correlation):
"I don't know of any reason that legalizing something that essentially is bad for you would make it better, from a fiscal standpoint or a public health standpoint or a public safety standpoint," he said.
Source:
Clearly he must be aware that his statement is contradictory as well as factually incorrect with regard to many activities and vices that the government does, in fact, regulate rather than leaving the market to organized crime (prescription, medicine, alcohol, tobacco, driving, and more recently, the pending decision by California to control and regulate potato chips, chocolate bars and other junk food in its public schools).
Thus, in order to help with his speech-writing, I would suggest the following as a replacement for his facile statement (so as to avoid confusion, obfuscation and outright mendacity):
"The state will continue to abrogate its moral authority to protect its citizens from organized crime, dangerous substances and fiscal malfeasance"
I would suggest that this will help to clarify his position (and Gil, if you are reading this and would like further assistance with your speech-writing, please do not hesitate to contact me--wmm)
Back in the real world, the Ciudad Juárez had 16 narco-related murders yesterday, including a young teenager (2 of the attacks, including one at a mall, resulted in 8 people being killed). This brings the toll for the month of April, for just Juárez, to 167 dead and for the year 2010 is now 801.
Another gang-fight at the prison in Tamaulipas left 4 dead (2 men and 2 women) and 2 wounded. This brings the total number of prisoners killed in the last week to 8, including 4 who were transfered to the Mazatlán prison last Sunday. The four were accused of killing 2 police chiefs and another police officer as well as numerous other gangsters and innocents. They had been in the prison for only 15 minutes before a gang of other prisoners attacked them with home-made knives ( as well as real knives).
Is this justice served? Not really as it should be borne in mind that the investigation prowess of the Mexican police is notoriously lacking and the 4 dead men might be guilty but all likely could have been innocent fall-guys for a failing system.
Speaking of the failing system, the Mexican Marines have arrested another 25 police officers in Acapulco (including 3 women police officers and 6 commanders) and who are now under investigation for criminal conduct and carrying non-issue weapons such as AK-47s and AR15s...which also happen to be the weapons of choice for Mexican hitmen.
Seriously, Gil, call me...let's talk.
Haha, MPP just put up a post about John Walters' reaction to this study. He basically reiterated his previous assertions that the exploding violence is evidence that we're winning the war on drugs.
ReplyDeleteThis is the sort of thinking that allows government officials to always justify continuation or expansion of a current program, regardless of whatever feedback is being received.
If violence were decreasing instead of increasing, I don’t think John Walters would be touting it as a sign that the cartels have finally won the war. He’d claim that our policies were making people safer, and therefore should be continued. He’s in a sealed-off position; whether violence goes up or down, the recommendation moving forward will be exactly the same. This is a hallmark of demonstrably illogical thinking.
It doesn't sound like Kerlikowske's thinking is much more evolved than Walters'. Sigh.
As a matter of principle, I do not comment on John Walters because he is so misinformed and because he makes the most blatantly obtuse statements he is, without a shadow of a doubt, his own worst critic (of which the thinking public is aware). It is like arguing with a 2 year, it is something that you refrain from doing because of its futility.
ReplyDeleteNow, having said all that, I can only note that, using Walters's logic, I am tempted to challenge Floyd Mayweather to a title bout because I am sure to "win" (and collect millions for it)...with apologies to Shane Mosley.